Citifinancial Retail Servs. V. Hooks
| Docket Number: | 2004-IA-02512-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-23-2006 Opinion Author: Easley, J. Holding: REVERSED AND RENDERED |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Contract - Summary judgment Judge(s) Concurring: Smith, C.J., Waller, P.J., Carlson and Dickinson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Randolph, JJ. Dissenting Author : GRAVES, J. Concurs in Result Only: Cobb, P.J. Procedural History: Summary Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 12-06-2004 Appealed from: Covington County Circuit Court Judge: Robert G. Evans Disposition: Denied Appellant's Motion for Summary Judgment Case Number: 2002-237C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CITIFINANCIAL RETAIL SERVICES |
HEATH ALAN FITE, REID STEPHENS MANLEY, ELIZABETH B. SHIRLEY |
||
| Appellee: | SAMMIE HOOKS AND WINNIE HOOKS | DAVID SHOEMAKE, AUDRY REGNAL BLACKLEDGE |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Contract - Summary judgment |
| Summary of the Facts: | Winnie Hooks and Sammie Hooks filed suit against Citifinancial Retail Services, alleging breach of contract, tortious breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, fraud, fraudulent inducement, negligence, gross negligence, and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress regarding the purchase of a rug on a ninety days same as cash basis. The complaint was later amended to include a claim of defamation. CRS filed a motion for summary judgment. In response, the Hookses filed affidavits that differed from the testimony given in their depositions. CRS filed its motion to strike the Hookses’ affidavits because they differed substantially from and contradicted their deposition testimony, which the trial court denied. After conducting a hearing, the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment without explanation. By the same order, the trial court denied CRS’s ore tenus motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Hookses purchased a rug and entered into a contract to pay on a ninety days same as cash basis. A sales receipt in Sammie’s name from Anderson’s Rug Market in Hattiesburg, stated the purchase transpired on August 18, 1999. In the Hookses’ complaint and amended complaint, they erroneously listed the purchase date of the rug as August 29, 1999. The “payment” receipt signed by Winnie stated the rug was purchased for $785.35 on August 18, 1999, from Anderson’s Rug Market. The “payment” receipt stated“3 months no pay.” CRS presented copies of the September and October 1999 monthly billing statements addressed to the Hookses containing language that the transaction occurred on August 18, 1999, and that the balance of $785.35 must be paid no later than November 16, 1999. The Hookses maintain that the November billing statement provided a payment due date of November 29, 1999. Winnie’s check made payable to Citifinancial Retail Services in the amount of $785.35 was dated November 15, 1999. CRS’s records provide that the check was processed on November 22, 1999. The Hookses state that in the year 2000, they began receiving notices that interest and charges were accruing on their account because of the late payment. CRS billed the Hookses for the deferred interest for the ninety day period, current interest on the unpaid balance, and a monthly late charge. Subsequently, the Hookses received calls from a collection agency regarding their overdue CRS account. The Hookses alleged that in 2002, 2003 and 2004, they attempted to acquire loans from Union Planters’ Bank which were denied in part by Citifinancial reporting them to credit agencies for failure to pay. Since the purchase occurred on August 18, 1999, ninety days from August 18, 1999, was November 16, 1999. Therefore, the Hookses should have paid the account in full by November 16, 1999. However, the payment was not received by November 16, 1999. The record reflects that CRS processed the payment on November 22, 1999. The Hookses bore the burden, not the finance company CRS, to ensure that their payment was received in time not to exceed ninety days from the date of the purchase. Since the record shows there is no dispute the purchase occurred on August 18, 1999, there exists no issue of a material fact and the trial court erred in not granting summary judgment in favor of CRS. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
